Deregulator: Alive since '85!

SOTU thoughts At Reason's Web site, my longtime friend and fellow Tar Heel John Hood offers this compelling argument why -- despite an uninspiring field of Democratic challengers -- a second Bush term may not be a sure bet. John's point goes beyond the apparent meltdown of Howard Dean and the emergence of seemingly more electable Democratic rivals post-Iowa: The problem for Bush and the Republicans is that if the security issue gets muted during the 2004 campaign, a good chunk of their political base will get uncomfortable. It is difficult to overstate the extent to which the limited-government, free-market faction of their coalition—including mainstream Reagan Republicans, old-style balanced-budget moderates, and small-l libertarians—have been dismayed by Bush's dismal record on federal spending and entitlements. Non-defense discretionary spending under Bush and a Republican Congress soared by nearly 19 percent in two years, a rate not seen in decades and one making Bill

Republican government No, I'm not talking about the State of the Union address, but instead today's filing of a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the Guinn v. Legislature lawsuit. (Read the petition here .) The strongest point made by the brief is that -- by setting aside the supermajority requirement in the state constitution for the Legislature to increase taxes -- the Nevada Supreme Court has violated Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees each state a republican form of government. While defenders of Nevada's crackpot decision claim there's no way the federal justices will get involved in a decision affecting only one state, Chapman University law professor John Eastman , who wrote the brief, cites a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the justices said they might be receptive to such a case. Eastman also notes that if this decision stands, big spenders in the dozen-plus states that also have supermajority tax-increase requiremen

The Sun weighs in The Las Vegas Sun publishes a superficial front-page feature today on public employees in the Legislature. It's long on information but woefully short on analysis. The point of the story seems to be that barring public employees from legislative service will change the Legislature, but it doesn't really explain how ... or argue why anyone should care. The story mentions that there's a concern that dual service might violate the separation of powers clause in the state constitution, but then brushes aside that argument because the Legislative Counsel Bureau -- the Legislature's hired legal help -- has ruled the provision doesn't apply, so the story abandons the issue entirely. (The LCB also decided in 2002 it was OK for an employee of the state Department of Transportation to sit in the Legislature and hold both jobs. Amazing.) It also completely ignores the question of home rule, which is (or should be) the basis on which the forthcoming opinion b